Comment
(required)

Type the letters appearing in the picture.

Add Comment

Recent comments

TQpbUDvjDdCTeMbrTF

There are a variety of pacihtng products available. The severity of the crack will determine what you need to do.Measure the size of the crack and go to your local improvement store. Look though the concrete pacihtng products and look for the...

There are a variety of pacihtng products available. The severity of the crack will determine what you need to do.Measure the size of the crack and go to your local improvement store. Look though the concrete pacihtng products and look for the recommendations on what size cracks they're designed to repair.Alternately, you can just mix some concrete and patch it yourself, if of course you ahve a steady hand and a trowel.

Posted by Ariec (guest) on Sun 02 Jun 2013 04:51:28 PDT

Sagegunner212@yahoo.com

It's Russian, Not Ukrainian. Ukraine was Not Ukraine back then. It was Russia, Or USSR. They were Soviet.
It's not Ukrainian.

Posted by Guest on Wed 25 Feb 2009 20:28:21 PST

bsimic@fesb.hr

The idea of building the second sarcophagus is to protect the environment, but also to make it possible to dismantle the old sarcophagus and gradually remove the remaining fuel from the site. All the removed materials should be buried into underground...

The idea of building the second sarcophagus is to protect the environment, but also to make it possible to dismantle the old sarcophagus and gradually remove the remaining fuel from the site. All the removed materials should be buried into underground shelters, as any other radioactive waste.

Posted by Guest on Sun 08 Feb 2009 16:33:49 PST

bsimic@fesb.hr

To Sharkyjones and Skweekah: the idea seem good, but only for the second - to fill one floor with the concrete at the time, and move upwards until the whole *SHIT* is buried. This is very bad idea because the concrete: 1. IS VERY HEAVY and 2. EASILY...

To Sharkyjones and Skweekah: the idea seem good, but only for the second - to fill one floor with the concrete at the time, and move upwards until the whole *SHIT* is buried. This is very bad idea because the concrete: 1. IS VERY HEAVY and 2. EASILY CRACKS AND BREAKS. The two above problems are solved every day by putting steal reinforcement into concrete. There is no way to put such reinforcement into lowest floor before pouring concrete. Without it, the concrete would break under the weight of upper layers, possibly releasing the radioactivity into ground. If there was such a leak, there would be no solution to the problem, because the remaining fuel was "buried" and therefore completely inaccessible by the liquidators!

Posted by Guest on Sun 08 Feb 2009 16:27:33 PST

Skweekah

You are all talking shit. They have to do something. They cant sit on their fucking hands and wait for the nuclear waste to become inert. Pump the bastard full of concrete. Fuck the dust. That's not as big of a problem as some cunt from Afghanistan...

You are all talking shit. They have to do something. They cant sit on their fucking hands and wait for the nuclear waste to become inert. Pump the bastard full of concrete. Fuck the dust. That's not as big of a problem as some cunt from Afghanistan coming in with his backpack and a pick to grab some radioactive slag (not talking about his wife here) to shove down Barack Obama's pants! Hot damn. Chernobyl and the Russians could have been great but the whole lot of em are a bunch of vodka-swilling loons... Bye Bye. Skweekah

Posted by Guest on Thu 29 Jan 2009 03:20:49 PST

sharkyjones

If you fill cement from the bottom upwards in stages. Get below the reactor space. Fill with cement, let set. Then fill up progressively next layer. Make many small cement "plugs" volume flow rate of cement in would be small so as to fill each room in a...

If you fill cement from the bottom upwards in stages. Get below the reactor space. Fill with cement, let set. Then fill up progressively next layer. Make many small cement "plugs" volume flow rate of cement in would be small so as to fill each room in a laminar flow regime and minimise disturbance of particles. This could work.

Problems mentioned - Volume of cement - yes but no insurmountable. E.g. comparable to a mall.
- Increasing volume of radioactive material - yes and no - you are encasing the radioactive material inside the cement / concrete and leaving in place.

In oil drilling they use Neutron radiation sources to measure formation properties while drilling. Very rarely one these get lost down hole. The hole is filled with cement (coloured red or orange as a warning in case anyone else drills near) and cemented for eternity. Granted these sources are then DEEEP underground, but the theory is sound, fill the voids under the reactor with cement from bottom up and encase.

Money, is the biggest problem.

Posted by Guest on Wed 01 Aug 2007 08:57:14 PDT

Stinky

Environmental groups don't have the money or expertise for this kind of thing, nor would it be in anyone's interest to have them sticking their nose into international nuclear and security issues. The governments of all the people who are or will be...

Environmental groups don't have the money or expertise for this kind of thing, nor would it be in anyone's interest to have them sticking their nose into international nuclear and security issues. The governments of all the people who are or will be negatively impacted by this...in other words, ALL governments...should be working together to fund the job and get it done. I for one would far rather see my tax money going to protect millions of people from radiation than to colonizing the Middle East.

Posted by Guest on Sat 23 Jun 2007 23:49:04 PDT

$H@KTI

Roger -Dot- Lee don,t even start with me dude!!!
If i had the power to build it i would have done it!!!Butt where talking aboud a serious Radiation contained building that,s need to be handled by expert,s!!!Butt it,s taking to much time!!!And we ...

Roger -Dot- Lee don,t even start with me dude!!!
If i had the power to build it i would have done it!!!Butt where talking aboud a serious Radiation contained building that,s need to be handled by expert,s!!!Butt it,s taking to much time!!!And we don,t have it!!!

Posted by Guest on Wed 16 May 2007 12:47:51 PDT

Roger -Dot- Lee

Lead isn't the right answer either, for the same reason concrete isn't: weight. If you pour enough lead into the reactor space to fill it, it will collapse under its own weight and contaminate the ground and water supply for generations to come.

Lead isn't the right answer either, for the same reason concrete isn't: weight. If you pour enough lead into the reactor space to fill it, it will collapse under its own weight and contaminate the ground and water supply for generations to come.

Also, a little over a year ago, someone asked why they can't just do it and worry about the money later. Why? Because people, especially in that area, don't have enough money to feed their families while they take two years off their paying job to work on this. Yes, it needs to be done. Yes, all the world will benefit from it. But Yuri Sixpack in Kiev isn't going to be able to feed his wife and kids (dog optional) during the time he takes off from work to work on this project. $H@KI: have you reserved your plane ticket to Kiev to volunteer your services for this world saving project? I assume that since you're so free with everyone else's labor and money, that you'd be delighted to join in on the fun and be the lead person, standing on top of the new dome like a figurehead, as everybody boldly and brisquely volunteers THEIR time and resources to put an admittedly long overdue structure into place?

You *HAVE* volunteered for the project, haven't you?

Posted by Guest on Sun 13 May 2007 08:37:26 PDT

Scott

Well if the Ukraine government can't fund containment then why don't some of the big environmental groups pitch in and do it themselves instead of whining about it?

Posted by Guest on Thu 10 May 2007 18:28:35 PDT

Mifodiy

Well i agree with idea to fill the core area ,but i don`t think the cement is a right substance to do so .Don`t forget about radiation from the remaining spent and unspent fuel , only lead can handle it (IMHO).
The problem with radioactive dust...

Well i agree with idea to fill the core area ,but i don`t think the cement is a right substance to do so .Don`t forget about radiation from the remaining spent and unspent fuel , only lead can handle it (IMHO).
The problem with radioactive dust could be solved as well ,like pumping it out simuntaniosly ,while pumping in lead or other substance ...

Posted by Guest on Thu 10 May 2007 01:03:06 PDT

AZ

So thats why they stopped to throw sand and concrete into reactor after ten days from catastrophe - because they feared that base of block eventually cannot withstand all this mass. So, this solution was considered very bad and was rejected.

Posted by Guest on Mon 26 Feb 2007 07:03:38 PST

AZ

> Why can we not get a hose into the
> reactor area underneath the lid with
> a robot and just pump thousands of
> tons of liquid cement.
This is a dangerous and bad solution because of various reasons:
1. A concrete base...

> Why can we not get a hose into the
> reactor area underneath the lid with
> a robot and just pump thousands of
> tons of liquid cement.
This is a dangerous and bad solution because of various reasons:
1. A concrete base of Block cannot withstand such mass of concrete and will collapse into ground under it, polluting ground and ground water even more.
2. In any case there will be air holes in a block, unless it will also be drilled in hundred places.
3. There are also will be a lot of radioactive dust thrown out of a block.
4. Instructions from International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) about handling radioactive masses says not to increase a volume of such masses if possible and not to bother upcoming generations with such problems. Both of this rules will be violated in a such case: in current form mass of highly radioactive masses is around 200 tons, while after pumping fresh concrete it will increase to many thousand tons of high-to-medium containment concrete that must be handled in future.

Posted by Guest on Mon 26 Feb 2007 06:59:40 PST

$H@KTI

Why cam,t they jus,t build the dammmm second Sarcophagus and worry aboud money later???Those brave men who build the first one didn,t worry aboud money !!!they where thinking aboud the future of their childeren so why don,t we do the same thing???If the...

Why cam,t they jus,t build the dammmm second Sarcophagus and worry aboud money later???Those brave men who build the first one didn,t worry aboud money !!!they where thinking aboud the future of their childeren so why don,t we do the same thing???If the first Sarcophagus fall appart whe have a the same problemen as 20 years ago without a blast,butt with the same radiationlevel,so why can,t we do it now with less radiation and better conditions???When are some people going 2 lern from this???

Posted by Guest on Thu 15 Feb 2007 11:01:13 PST

$H@KTI

Why cam,t they jus,t build the dammmm second Sarcophagus and worry aboud money later???Those brave men who build the first one didn,t worry aboud money !!!they where thinking aboud the future of their childeren so why don,t we do the same thing???If the...

Why cam,t they jus,t build the dammmm second Sarcophagus and worry aboud money later???Those brave men who build the first one didn,t worry aboud money !!!they where thinking aboud the future of their childeren so why don,t we do the same thing???If the first Sarcophagus fall appart whe have a the same problemen as 20 years ago without a blast,butt with the same radiationlevel,so why can,t we do it now with less radiation and better conditions???When are some people going 2 lern from this???

Posted by Guest on Thu 15 Feb 2007 11:01:12 PST

Mike

Apparently the (as was) G7 countries are stumping up the cash for the new shield and it is being built by a consortium that includes EDF (Electrique de France) . However, this was agreed in 1997 and I still can't see a new shield on it so I'm not sure...

Apparently the (as was) G7 countries are stumping up the cash for the new shield and it is being built by a consortium that includes EDF (Electrique de France) . However, this was agreed in 1997 and I still can't see a new shield on it so I'm not sure if this is going ahead.

Posted by Guest on Mon 29 Jan 2007 09:24:07 PST

Stranger

It is not Russian diagram, but Ukrainain.

Posted by Guest on Sun 28 Jan 2007 23:46:46 PST

ColumbineGirl

The plans for the new structure to be built over the existing sarcophagus would be built on cement runners a few hundred yards away and slid into place. It is supposed to be the largest moveable structure ever built, making it over 128,100,000 sq. feet....

The plans for the new structure to be built over the existing sarcophagus would be built on cement runners a few hundred yards away and slid into place. It is supposed to be the largest moveable structure ever built, making it over 128,100,000 sq. feet. (That's 45 times larger than the Titanic!) The only problem of course is that it would cost some 800 million dollars. And there just isn't that kind of money around. (Check it out in the April 2006 National Geographic.)

Posted by Guest on Sun 26 Nov 2006 13:34:45 PST

WAG

(clicking heels together) "There's no place like home. There's no place like home. There's no place ........

Posted by Guest on Thu 10 Aug 2006 00:55:12 PDT

Alan

It would have to be built someplace else and moved by robots into place since areas near the original sarcophagus are still pretty radioactive. As to who will foot the bill, nobody yet which it presently isn't being built.

Posted by Guest on Sun 25 Jun 2006 23:13:03 PDT

sarah

probably a nother stupid question from me. who is going to pay fro the new sarcophagus? and how bad would the radiation be for the people that are constructing the new one?

Posted by Guest on Tue 13 Jun 2006 21:30:15 PDT

KoTaur (again)

But what if they drop something heavy near R4?

Posted by Guest on Fri 26 May 2006 10:32:02 PDT

Ko.Taur@gmail.com

Well, I'm no Physiscist, but wouldn't the operation of modern heavy machinery in building a new sarcophagus unsettle the already tottering R4 lid? There's also the risk of ground instability - nuclear radiation can really mess things up behind the...

Well, I'm no Physiscist, but wouldn't the operation of modern heavy machinery in building a new sarcophagus unsettle the already tottering R4 lid? There's also the risk of ground instability - nuclear radiation can really mess things up behind the scenes, especially with 20 years of subatomic particle rattling. I guess theres all that hardened molten fuel-metal and concrete, though. Good strong foundation(?).

Posted by Guest on Fri 26 May 2006 10:30:22 PDT

Constantin

1) If the sarcophagus collaps we gonna have the same situtation like 1986, but without explosion, in othern words hi level rediation liquage, please note that the sarcophagus is NOT shielded,it has many gaps of total estimated 100m2, so there is...

1) If the sarcophagus collaps we gonna have the same situtation like 1986, but without explosion, in othern words hi level rediation liquage, please note that the sarcophagus is NOT shielded,it has many gaps of total estimated 100m2, so there is radiation liquage at this time in lowest levels than after the explosion.2) They delay the construction of the contaminating construction because of the ancient problem, the money! The money is behind of everything and without them we can't do almost enything. If they were built a contaminating building when they built the plant for precaution, the world would be diferent!

Posted by Guest on Sat 29 Apr 2006 18:10:07 PDT

sarah

ok i dont no much about this so please be pacient with my questions. what would happen if the sarcophagus started to collaps and why is it taking so long for a new one to be built?

Posted by Guest on Fri 28 Apr 2006 07:55:43 PDT

Somebody Somewhere

I assume that part of the problem with simply pumping a concrete into the voids is displacement of the air. I have read that the air is filled with radioactive dust, and if you pump something into the places that are currently occupied by that air, the...

I assume that part of the problem with simply pumping a concrete into the voids is displacement of the air. I have read that the air is filled with radioactive dust, and if you pump something into the places that are currently occupied by that air, the air is going to have to move somewhere else (namely, outside the sarcophagus).

Posted by Guest on Mon 24 Apr 2006 14:43:34 PDT

HighLander eire

good idea "Sharkyjones" on the cement but the problem is funding if you look at the up to date photos of the cap its crumbling away faster than the 30 year shelf life it was given plus its 10 years behind on its upgrade if the seal collapses ! well put ...

good idea "Sharkyjones" on the cement but the problem is funding if you look at the up to date photos of the cap its crumbling away faster than the 30 year shelf life it was given plus its 10 years behind on its upgrade if the seal collapses ! well put your head between your legs and kiss europe good bye :-/ ?

Posted by Guest on Sun 23 Apr 2006 02:33:01 PDT

Sharkyjones

Why can we not get a hose into the reactor area underneath the lid with a robot and just pump thousands of tons of liquid cement like we do in the oil field! Fill it up, contain it. Use thixotrophic cement (thixotrophic means it is liquid while being...

Why can we not get a hose into the reactor area underneath the lid with a robot and just pump thousands of tons of liquid cement like we do in the oil field! Fill it up, contain it. Use thixotrophic cement (thixotrophic means it is liquid while being sheared / pumped but when you stop it becomes like jelly and sets quick like ketchup but backwards) so it would not all leak away

Posted by Guest on Tue 18 Apr 2006 23:34:42 PDT

Ektich

Coorection: it's Ukrainian diagram, not Russian

Posted by Guest on Tue 26 Apr 2005 04:20:36 PDT

david

incredible sight. thank you for the gift.

Posted by Guest on Fri 08 Apr 2005 01:20:45 PDT

Add Comment

Name

Subject

R
H
G
S
B
V

#

You can also use the colour name for example: [color=red]Your Text[/color]